House price cuts helped sales surge by nearly 10pc last month

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

See Hamish is gone!

I know - what a loser.

Not on an internet forum at 10:30 on a Friday night.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Your theory however does work rather nicely if you take 2007 onwards (because of the credit crunch).

Here is your theory working...

Oh right then.

So my theory does apply to the market under current conditions, and has done for the last 4 years or so.

Thanks for clearing that up. :T

ess0two

wotsthat wrote: »

I know - what a loser.

Not on an internet forum at 10:30 on a Friday night.

You seen the price of a pint lately........like houses it just aint worth it.

Water is free,a few hops,etc etc and they have a cheek to charge £2.50+ a pint,i aint buying until the price comes down,i want 50% off a pint.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Oh right then.

So my theory does apply to the market under current conditions, and has done for the last 4 years or so.

Thanks for clearing that up. :T

LOL. Yup. Exactly as I said. Massaging the data to suit. You'll massage the very same data in a different way to suit you in a different argument!

Bless them above trying to make something of nothing!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

LOL. Yup. Exactly as I said. Massaging the data to suit.

Is the credit crunch over? No. Are we still in a similar place to where we've been for the last 4 years in terms of lending? Yes. Therefore the theory holds.

It's 4 years of data, that proves my point exactly.

In the current market conditions, rising volumes lead rising prices. You can moan all you like and try to muddle the issue if you want, but it's absolutely the case and you can't deny it.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Is the credit crunch over? No. Are we still in a similar place to where we've been for the last 4 years in terms of lending? Yes. Therefore the theory holds.

It's 4 years of data, that proves my point exactly.

In the current market conditions, rising volumes lead rising prices. You can moan all you like and try to muddle the issue if you want, but it's absolutely the case and you can't deny it.

If you like Hamish. Anyone can see that you are relying on credit crunch figures, which includes confidence and all that jazz to make your point.

Liek I said, I did the work for you and provided you with where your theory works. But go past your beloved 2007 and your theory all falls down. Therefore it's hardly a theory. It's more to do with credit markets.

Don't worry, if transactions fall next month, I'll suggest prices will therefore fall, and you can then claim that no, I'm incorrect, and you can forget this theory of yours and make yourself another

I'm only having fun really, as you move from argument to argument as it suits you. You have no consistent argument at all, and if you do have an argument, it will rely heavily on smoke, mirrors and masseurs.

geneer

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If you like Hamish. Anyone can see that you are relying on credit crunch figures, which includes confidence and all that jazz to make your point.

Liek I said, I did the work for you and provided you with where your theory works. But go past your beloved 2007 and your theory all falls down.

Sounds an awful lot like his "normal seasonal variations" theory.

Rinoa

geneer wrote: »

Sounds an awful lot like his "normal seasonal variations" theory.

In an index not seasonally adjusted, seasonal variations can only be seen when prices are more or less flatlining. If prices are rising 10% each year, the seasonal dips are masked by HPI.

crash123

I think we need more data.
where have the increase in sales been? which areas?
Breakdown of number of houses sold in specific price ranges?
etc etc

geneer

wotsthat wrote: »

I know - what a loser.

Not on an internet forum at 10:30 on a Friday night.

:rotfl:Do enlighten us as to what is a Cool time to be hanging out on internet forums.